Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
The filling date of this application number recited above is 13-January-2025. No priority has been claimed in the Application Data Sheet, thus the examination will be undertaken in consideration of the effective filing date as the priority date.
No information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed to date.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea, Mental Processes and/or Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
As per Claims 1, 11, and 19, the claims recite “a method comprising:
maintaining, on an [entity] comprising a [paper], transactional access to a plurality of banking institutions at which a user has at least one account, the plurality of banking institutions comprising at least a first banking institution and a second banking institution;
performing a compliance status check for each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions; and
in response to determining a possible non-compliance exists from at least one compliance status check, rendering and presenting a non-compliance alert message that indicates each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions for which a possible non-compliance exists”
The limitation of the claim recited above, considering the claim without the additional elements (e.g. device, display, memory, processor, computer program product, etc.), under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), recites Mental Processes. The method recited above is a process of maintaining information, comparing information, and providing a message based on the compared information. These steps can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, which is a mental process, as disclosed by MPEP 2106.04(III)(A):
“In contrast, claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and
• a claim to identifying head shape and applying hair designs, which is a process that can be practically performed in the human mind, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-17 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).”
Although the claim may recite using a computer for the claimed process, performing a mental process on a generic computer still recite a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(III)(C):
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
Additionally, the claim, under BRI, recites Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities. The claim limitations involve the field of maintaining a plurality of bank accounts (e.g. transaction accounts), and determining compliance of those accounts (e.g. balance check), with the goal of mitigating risk as disclosed by Specification:
[0064] “Disclosed embodiments automate much of the tasks associated with keeping track of both business and personal accounts, thereby mitigating the risk of an account becoming noncompliant due to a funding source violation, especially for small businesses, where the opportunity to inadvertently comingle business and personal funds may exist”
[0087] “Advantages of disclosed embodiments can include real-time monitoring that provides continuous tracking of account and institutional compliance to ensure prompt detection of potential issues, minimizing the risk of penalties and/or legal consequences … By offering real-time monitoring, actionable alerts, practical recommendations, and/or automatic triggering and/or initiating of mitigation steps, disclosed embodiments enhance trust, reduce risks, and simplify compliance management”
which may be fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial or legal interactions, under certain methods of organizing human activities. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional element of “electronic device”, “display”, “subsystem”, “memory”, “processor”, “module”, “computer program product”, “non-transitory computer readable medium”, and “program” to perform the method recited above by instructing the abstract idea to be performed “by” these generic computer components. These additional elements are generic, off-the-shelf components available to the public, and does not require any specialized hardware or equipment to perform the claimed functions of maintaining data, comparing data, rendering data, and presenting data, as disclosed by Specification:
[0031] “Throughout this disclosure, the terms 'electronic device', 'communication device', and 'electronic communication device' may be used interchangeably, and may refer to devices such as smartphones, tablet computers, and/or other computing/communication devices”
[0034] “Examples of electronic device 100 can include, but are not limited to, mobile devices, a notebook computer, a mobile phone, a smart phone, a digital camera with enhanced processing capabilities, a smart watch, a tablet computer, and other types of electronic devices”
[0038] “For example, electronic device 100 may use special purpose hardware, dedicated processors, general purpose computers, microprocessor-based computers, micro-controllers, optical computers, analog computers, dedicated processors and/or dedicated hard-wired logic”
[0039] “Memory subsystem (or memory) 120 may include a combination of volatile and non-volatile memory, such as random-access memory (RAM) and read-only memory (ROM)”
These general computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. For example, mere instructions to display information on a GUI does not improve computer functionality, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) example that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: “Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019)”. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to maintain, compare, or present data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain methods of organizing human activities) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, the additional element of using a computer based system is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system. The claim lacks sufficient technical details to provide how these limitations may provide technological steps or technical details on how it is particularly implemented on a computer to improve its system or any of its underlying hardware or components (e.g. how it is performed on the computer, how it could improve the computer itself, how it could manipulate the computer to function in a specific way other than its generic functionality, and/or how it could improve any of the underlying technology), but merely applies the generic computer system to perform its generic functionalities. Mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. mere “apply it”) is not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”). In view of the Specification cited above, the judicial exception is not applied with or used by a particular machine. As held in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 199 (1978) and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1276, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012), “the routine use of a computer to perform calculations cannot turn an otherwise ineligible mathematical formula or law of nature into patentable subject matter.” The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims, they are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2 and 12 recite “wherein to perform the compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to: perform a user account compliance status check on each user account that includes a minimum balance check for each account, wherein the minimum balance check compares a current balance for each user account with a corresponding minimum balance level; and indicate a non-compliance condition in response to the current balance being below the corresponding minimum balance level.” The claims provide details regarding the data analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 13 recite “wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: render and present on the display a transfer window on the display with selectable options for a user to determine an amount for a transfer and whether to proceed with the transfer.” The claims provide additional steps of presenting data, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 4 and 14 recite “wherein to perform the compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to: retrieve a know your customer (KYC) expiration date for each user account in each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions; determine a current number of days until each KYC expiration date; compare the current number of days until each KYC expiration date with a predetermined threshold value; and in response to determining that the current number of days for one or more of the KYC expiration dates is less than the predetermined threshold value, render and present on the display a reminder to complete a re-KYC process.” The claims provide details regarding the data analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 recite “wherein to perform the compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to: retrieve an established transaction limit per unit time period for each user account in each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions; determine a current number of transactions for each user account in each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions; compare the current number of transactions per unit time period for each user account with a respective preestablished number of transactions per unit time period for a corresponding user account; and in response to determining that a current number of transactions at a first user account is at or above the respective preestablished number of transactions for the first user account, indicate the first user account as a non-compliant account, and render and present on the display an indication of a transaction limit alert for the non-compliant account.” The claims provide details regarding the data analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 6 and 16 recite “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: identify at least one user account in at least one banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions that has a current number of transactions that is less than a transaction limit level for the at least one user account; and include in the non-compliance alert message, an option to use the identified at least one user account instead of the non-compliant account.” The claims provide details regarding the data analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 17 recite “wherein to perform the user account compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to: determine a funding source approved for each user account in each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions; determine whether there is a mismatch between the approved funding source and an actual funding source for a proposed deposit for a selected user account from among each user account in each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions; and in response to determining a funding source mismatch for the selected user account, indicate the selected user account as a non-compliant account, and render and present on the display an indication of a funding source mismatch for the non-compliant account.” The claims provide details regarding the data analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 18 recite “wherein the compliance status check comprises a banking institution compliance status check performed for each of the plurality of banking institutions.” The claims provide details regarding the data analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 9 recites “wherein to perform the banking institution compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to: scrape information from one or more online media sources; and rank the one or more online media sources based on a source category, wherein the source category can include one from a group comprising a regulatory site, a media site, and a social media site, wherein the scraped information, in conjunction with the ranking for the one or more online media sources, is used to determine a probability of a banking institution non-compliance condition.” The claim provides details regarding the data analysis, which is still part of the abstract idea, and the additional elements are merely applied to implement the abstract idea, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
Claim 10 recites “wherein to perform the banking institution compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to use a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is trained in at least one of financial anomaly detection, sentiment analysis, credit risk modeling, fraud detection, contagion risk evaluation, and operational risk evaluation.” The claim provides additional element of a “machine learning model”, which is provided at a mere “apply it” level as a black-box application, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application.
These additional steps of each claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claim above because they are merely further limiting the rules used to conduct the previously recited abstract idea, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claim above.
Claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20, when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are sufficient to integrate into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly to the independent claim, each claim recites using a generic computer system to perform the abstract idea as mentioned above. Mere “apply it” is not “significantly more”. Therefore, prong 2 and step 2B analysis are similar to above and these claims are not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 11-13, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elterich (US 20050149436 A1).
As per Claims 1, 11, and 19, Elterich discloses an electronic device (See Figure 2) comprising:
a display (See Figures 1 and 2 comprising a display monitor);
a communications subsystem enabling the electronic device to communicatively connect to a network comprising a plurality of second electronic devices (See Figures 1 and 2 with the Internet, Intranet, and Ethernet 21 connections);
a memory having stored thereon a banking compliance evaluation (BCE) module (See Figure 2 – Rules System 23); and
at least one processor coupled to the display, the communications subsystem, and the memory and which processes program code of the BCE module (See Figure 2 – Automated Asset Management system 10), the at least one processor configured to cause the electronic device to:
maintain transactional access to a plurality of banking institutions at which a user has at least one account, the plurality of banking institutions comprising at least a first banking institution and a second banking institution ([0031] “As shown in FIG. 3, to establish account management rules, a user (e.g., user 1 shown in FIG. 1) initially establishes communication with the automated account management system 10 using the Internet and indicates a desire to place one or more of the user's accounts within the automated account management system by, for example, clicking on a button in a graphical user interface (block 32)” or see also [0052] “Additionally, the system may be configured to allow the user to view the current balance and transaction history of each of the user's accounts at any time by accessing this information using a secure Internet website”);
perform a compliance status check for each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions ([0023] “Once the user specifies a set of rules, the system automatically manages multiple accounts in multiple financial institutions in accordance with the user-defined rules” or see also [0046] “After determining the rules set for execution, the rules engine scans the rules to determine if there is any conflict among the rules set for execution (block 48)”); and
in response to determining a possible non-compliance exists from at least one compliance status check, render and present a non-compliance alert message that indicates each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions for which a possible non-compliance exists ([0047] “If the rules engine determines that there is a conflict among the rules, it uses a predetermined set of conflict resolution rules to resolve the conflict (block 50)” wherein [0049] “If execution of one of the rules indicates that the user is to be sent an alert message (e.g., to alert the user that the balance has reached a certain threshold) or if execution of one of the rules causes the system to transfer money into or out of one or more of a user's accounts, then the rules engine generates and transmits an appropriate message to the user (e.g., via an e-mail to a user's electronic mailbox or a text-message to a user's cell phone, pager or wireless personal data assistant (PDA)) indicating the alert or the action taken by the system (block 54)”).
As per Claims 2 and 12, Elterich discloses the electronic device of claim 1, and the method of claim 11, wherein to perform the compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to:
perform a user account compliance status check on each user account that includes a minimum balance check for each account, wherein the minimum balance check compares a current balance for each user account with a corresponding minimum balance level ([0034] “First, the rules manager prompts the user for information that indicates whether the user would like the system to maintain a minimum balance in one or more of the user's accounts (block 35) … If the user identifies any accounts that the user would like to maintain a minimum balance, the rules manager asks the user to identify the minimum amount the user would like to maintain on the account. After the user identifies the minimum balances, the rules manager then prompts the user to identify accounts (called the source accounts) from which the user would like the system to transfer money if an account balance falls below the user-defined minimum”); and
indicate a non-compliance condition in response to the current balance being below the corresponding minimum balance level ([0049] “If execution of one of the rules indicates that the user is to be sent an alert message (e.g., to alert the user that the balance has reached a certain threshold) … then the rules engine generates and transmits an appropriate message to the user (e.g., via an e-mail to a user's electronic mailbox or a text-message to a user's cell phone, pager or wireless personal data assistant (PDA)) indicating the alert or the action taken by the system (block 54)” or see also [0055] “Similarly, an automated account management system may be configured to allow the user to establish rules that cause the system to send a notification message, for example, an e-mail message, should the balance of an account (or group of accounts) reach a certain threshold”).
As per Claims 3 and 13, Elterich discloses the electronic device of claim 2, and the method of claim 12, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the electronic device to:
render and present on the display a transfer window on the display with selectable options for a user to determine an amount for a transfer and whether to proceed with the transfer ([0055] “Other embodiments are within the scope of the following claims. For example, an automated account management system may be configured by the user to transmit a message to asking the user's approval, e.g., through an e-mail message or a SMS/SMTP text-message, of a transfer of funds to or from an account when the system detects the account value has reached a certain threshold” and [0004] “The method may include receiving information that indicates one or more source accounts from which the user desires the transfer of funds if the balance of the account falls below the minimum account balance and receiving information indicating how funds should be transferred from the one or more source accounts”).
As per Claims 8 and 18, Elterich discloses the electronic device of claim 1, and the method of claim 11, wherein the compliance status check comprises a banking institution compliance status check performed for each of the plurality of banking institutions ([0044] “As shown in FIG. 4, after a set of rules has been stored for a user, the automated account management system 10 manages the user's portfolio of accounts in accordance with the rules. In this regard, the aggregation system is configured to periodically (e.g., at 8:00 am each business day) download and store in the personal financial database 27 (shown in FIG. 2) account data for each users' portfolio of accounts (block 42)”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elterich (US 20050149436 A1) in view of Black (US 20210192541 A1).
As per Claims 4 and 14, Elterich may not explicitly disclose, but Black discloses the electronic device of claim 1, and the method of claim 11, wherein to perform the compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to:
retrieve a know your customer (KYC) expiration date for each user account in each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions; determine a current number of days until each KYC expiration date; compare the current number of days until each KYC expiration date with a predetermined threshold value ([0089] “In examples, KYC, AML, and/or accredited investor screening expires after some period of time, e.g., 6 months, 3 months, or one month. This period of time may depend on the business practices of the qualifier 106 in order to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and/or Patriot Act … Once the qualifier 106 has determined that a customer's previous KYC, AML, and/or accredited investor screening has expired or is near expiry (e.g., within a certain number of days or weeks of expiration), the qualifier 106 may send the offer for renewal screening to the customer”); and
in response to determining that the current number of days for one or more of the KYC expiration dates is less than the predetermined threshold value, render and present on the display a reminder to complete a re-KYC process ([0089] “In step 412, the qualifier 106 may send the customer (e.g., via the customer device 102) an offer for renewal screening. In examples, the offer indicates the customer's address, a qualifier address to receive payment from the customer, and/or the specific screening that requires (or will soon require) renewal … The offer may be sent via any suitable means, e.g., email, SMS message, push notification, mailed letter, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize rules including transaction limit over period of time as in Black in the system executing the method of Elterich with the motivation of offering to improve user experience while improving security and efficiency in reminders as taught by Black over that of Elterich.
Claims 5, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elterich in view of Harris et al. (US 20210383382 A1).
As per Claims 5, 15, and 20, Elterich may not explicitly disclose, but Harris discloses the electronic device of claim 1, the method of claim 11, and the computer program product of claim 19, wherein to perform the compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to:
retrieve an established transaction limit per unit time period for each user account in each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions ([0031] “In some embodiments, the customer is able to set up rules limiting the amount of money that can be spent from the customer's one or more accounts (e.g., payment amounts covering financial transactions). For example, the customer can set up rules limiting the amount of money that can be spent … over a specified period of time, and so on from a particular payment account.”);
determine a current number of transactions for each user account in each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions (See Figures 4A and 4B with the plurality of accounts with rules set for each account, wherein the rules would be checked for each transaction on each account);
compare the current number of transactions per unit time period for each user account with a respective preestablished number of transactions per unit time period for a corresponding user account ([0040] “The transaction processing circuit 134 is configured to receive and process payment requests made by various customers for customer accounts held with the financial institution associated with the financial institution computing system 106. In processing payment requests, the transaction processing circuit 134 is configured to determine whether one or more rules associated with the payment account for which the payment request is being made have been violated”); and
in response to determining that a current number of transactions at a first user account is at or above the respective preestablished number of transactions for the first user account, indicate the first user account as a non-compliant account, and render and present on the display an indication of a transaction limit alert for the non-compliant account ([0041] “The transaction processing circuit 134 is further programmed to subsequently alert the customer of the transaction with a notification (e.g., by a text or phone call to the customer device 102, by an email to the customer, by a notification on a mobile banking or mobile wallet application on the customer device 102), and the notification asks the customer if the customer was responsible for the transaction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize rules including transaction limit over period of time as in Harris in the system executing the method of Elterich with the motivation of offering to [0002-0003] improve user experience and customization, while reducing fraudulent transactions as taught by Harris over that of Elterich.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elterich, in view of Harris, and in view of Kurian (US 20190122200 A1).
As per Claims 6 and 16, Elterich may not explicitly disclose, but Kurian discloses the electronic device of claim 5, and the method of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify at least one user account in at least one banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions that has a current number of transactions that is less than a transaction limit level for the at least one user account; and include in the non-compliance alert message, an option to use the identified at least one user account instead of the non-compliant account ([0005] “Additionally or alternatively, the user-predefined action may comprise an approval to use an account of the user to execute the transaction at the known transaction amount or at or below the transaction amount limit” or see also [0008] “Additionally or alternatively, the user's approval to use the account of the user to execute the transaction further comprises an approval for the system to transfer the known transaction amount or the transaction amount limit to a separate account or an escrow account”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to presenting the user of an account below the transaction amount limit for approval as in Kurian in the system executing the method of Elterich with the motivation of offering to [0001] provide efficient, fast, and secure process that improve productivity and security of transactions as taught by Kurian over that of Elterich.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elterich in view of Ghosh et al. (US 20100274687 A1).
As per Claims 7 and 17, Elterich may not explicitly disclose, but Ghosh discloses the electronic device of claim 2, and the method of claim 11, wherein to perform the user account compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a funding source approved for each user account in each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions ([0077] “According to another embodiment of the invention, one or more of the customer-defined account rules 116 includes an account fund adequacy rule 216 operable to ensure adequate fund availability in one or more linked financial accounts for the purpose of funding an account debit/expenditure”);
determine whether there is a mismatch between the approved funding source and an actual funding source for a proposed deposit for a selected user account from among each user account in each banking institution among the plurality of banking institutions ([0077] “According to one embodiment of the invention, the customer may designate one account as the transferor account, in which case, if the designated account does not have adequate funds to accommodate the necessary transfer, the transfer may not occur … If the primary designated transferor account is unable to fund the transfer, the account management system 100 will look to the secondary transferor account to satisfy the transfer and so forth”); and
in response to determining a funding source mismatch for the selected user account, indicate the selected user account as a non-compliant account, and render and present on the display an indication of a funding source mismatch for the non-compliant account ([0079] “In the event that a debit/expenditure occurs on an account having insufficient funds to accommodate the debit and, thus a transfer from a prioritized linked account is necessary, a hold period may be required to be invoked to ensure that funds are transferred to the payment account prior to making the actual payment to the third party”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize account rules for transferring funds from one account to another as in Ghosh in the system executing the method of Elterich, wherein Elterich teaches of sending an alert based on execution of rules to transfer money as disclosed [0049] “If execution of one of the rules indicates that the user is to be sent an alert message (e.g., to alert the user that the balance has reached a certain threshold) or if execution of one of the rules causes the system to transfer money into or out of one or more of a user's accounts, then the rules engine generates and transmits an appropriate message to the user (e.g., via an e-mail to a user's electronic mailbox or a text-message to a user's cell phone, pager or wireless personal data assistant (PDA)) indicating the alert or the action taken by the system (block 54)”, with the motivation of offering to [0005] provide improved customer management of financial institution accounts, which “significantly reduce the number of customer overdrafts, and related overdraft fees, by providing for alternate means of funding the payment account” as taught by Ghosh over that of Elterich.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elterich in view of Misra et al. (US 20230104208 A1).
As per Claims 9, Elterich may not explicitly disclose, but Misra discloses the electronic device of claim 8, wherein to perform the banking institution compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to:
scrape information from one or more online media sources ([0078] “extracting, using the at least one processor, catastrophic event data from a network … In some embodiments of the computer-implemented method, the catastrophic event data includes data related to a catastrophic event that is extracted from at least one of a social media application or news application”); and
rank the one or more online media sources based on a source category, wherein the source category can include one from a group comprising a regulatory site, a media site, and a social media site, wherein the scraped information, in conjunction with the ranking for the one or more online media sources, is used to determine a probability of a banking institution non-compliance condition ([0078] “generating, with the at least one processor, a catastrophic event score based on the payment transaction data and the catastrophic event data; and adjusting a financial fraud rule by adding a catastrophic event threshold to the financial fraud rule that utilizes the catastrophic event score to determine whether a financial transaction is fraudulent … In some embodiments of the computer-implemented method, the start date of the catastrophic event and the location of the catastrophic event are used in combination with the catastrophic event score to determine, with at least one processor, whether to decline or approve the financial transaction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize extracting data from social media application or news application to determine catastrophic event score for financial transactions as in Misra in the system executing the method of Elterich with the motivation of offering to [0002] provide effective transaction methods while improving security against fraudulent transactions as taught by Misra over that of Elterich.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elterich in view of JUBAN et al. (US 20210224922 A1).
As per Claims 10, Elterich may not explicitly disclose, but JUBAN discloses the electronic device of claim 8, wherein to perform the banking institution compliance status check, the at least one processor is further configured to use a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is trained in at least one of financial anomaly detection, sentiment analysis, credit risk modeling, fraud detection, contagion risk evaluation, and operational risk evaluation ([0094] “The AML dashboard may be programmed or configured to use a variety of relational and transactional data to correlate all account activity and identify those accounts or account holders most likely to be engaging in illegal activity” wherein [0109] “The machine learning model may be designed to perform exhaustive feature engineering (as shown in FIG. 14D), using one or more of the following methods to structure raw data, thereby creating hundreds or thousands of features (e.g., signals) for the algorithm: parametric manipulations (e.g., across time, volume, and transaction types), anomaly detection (relative to historical behaviors and expected peer group behaviors), segmentation (using supervised and/or unsupervised learning techniques), graph analytics (detecting networks of illicit accounts), or natural language processing (NLP) (to mine SWIFT wire messages and other raw-text data)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize machine learning model and techniques for anomaly detection as in JUBAN in the system executing the method of Elterich with the motivation of offering to provide [0058] “improved AML analysis may benefit institutions (e.g., banks) by, for example, improving AML operational efficiency, reducing regulatory exposure, and reducing reputational risk” as taught by JUBAN over that of Elterich.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sunderji et al. (US 20030236728 A1) discloses [0063] “FIG. 12 is an example screen display 450 illustrating information related to risk management. A menu section 452 indicates that the "Risk Management" category has been selected. A service management section 454 identifies the selected customer and the services enabled for that customer. A limit section 456 identifies the number of outstanding transactions, the previous (or current) individual transaction limit, and the previous (or current) monthly transaction limit. Additionally, limit section 456 allows an administrator to modify the individual transaction limit and/or the monthly transaction limit.”
Cole et al. (US 20210248575 A1) discloses [0098] “User interface 300 may then request various parameters for the alert, such as, for example, when the alert should occur for the account, how often the user should be alerted, and who should be alerted, via a pop-up window, text box, or web page. Notifications may be made in any number of ways, including, for example, a telephone message, fax message, e-mail, text message, or instant message. Notifications may also be sent to the user or to any other individual or entity. As just one example, the user may choose to be alerted by e-mail any time the balance of “Spending Money” account 320 falls below $100.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY H JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5018. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine M Tran (Behncke) can be reached at (571) 272-8103. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HENRY H JUNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3695
/CHRISTINE M Tran/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights